Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Ignoring Court-Mandated PWD Safety Report Invalidates Municipal Order: J&K&L High Court
06 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Reserves Verdict in Raju Tampering Conviction Plea
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
Nokia Technologies OY a Corporation organized & existing under the laws of Finland, Karakaari – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs The patent Office Chennai – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) filed under Sections 117(A) of the Patents Act, 1970, prays to (1) an order setting aside the impugned order dated October 08,2020 passed by the Respondents; and (2) an order granting a patent on Indian Patent Application No. 2359/CHENP/2010 in favour of the Appellant.)
1. The appellant applied for grant of a patent in respect of a system and method for listening to audio content. The said application was filed on 23.04.2010. Originally, the appellant made 20 claims. The First Examination Report (FER) was issued on 11.08.2016. In the FER, objections were raised. The objections were responded to on 10.02.2017. In order to meet the objections, the appellant amended the claims and submitted 11 amended claims for consideration. Pursuant to a hearing notice dated 13.08.2020, the appellant was heard and the impugned order of refusal was issued on 08.10.2020.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant opened her submissions by pointing out that the European Patent O
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for thorough consideration of amended claims and legal submissions, particularly in relation to Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, an....
The main legal point established is the requirement for reasoned and considered decisions by the patent office, as well as the right of the applicant to have their submissions addressed and considere....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the need to consider the revised CRI 2017 Guidelines, the technical contribution and effect of the invention, and the lack of mandatory novel ha....
Informed decision-making and due application of mind are essential in adjudicating patent applications, and unreasonable delay in patent grant can discourage inventors.
The court has the authority to allow a change of name under Section 151 of the CPC.
The main legal point established is the requirement for proper reasoning in patent rejection orders, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and the need for objective criteria in decision-maki....
The judgment emphasizes the requirement for a reasoned decision and scrupulous adherence to principles of natural justice while rejecting patent applications, highlighting the elements of inventive s....
The court emphasized the importance of the Controller applying its mind to the facts and materials before it and deemed it appropriate to assume jurisdiction due to the non-application of mind by the....
A reasoned decision is required while rejecting patent applications, considering the existing knowledge, inventive step, and how the subject invention would be obvious to a person skilled in the art.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article